18-196 Gabriel-Lopez v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A208 179 321/322 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 15th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ARELI GABRIEL-LOPEZ, LEONARDO 15 LOPEZ-GABRIEL, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 18-196 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose 26 Perez, P.C., Syracuse, NY. 27 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 30 Attorney General; Anthony P. 31 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 32 Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, 33 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioners Areli Gabriel-Lopez and her son, Leonardo 9 Lopez-Gabriel, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review 10 of a December 18, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a January 11 27, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Areli Gabriel- 14 Lopez, Leonardo Lopez-Gabriel, Nos. A208 179 321/322 (B.I.A. 15 Dec. 18, 2017), aff’g Nos. A208 179 321/322 (Immig. Ct. 16 Buffalo Jan. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 20 BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d 21 Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 22 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 23 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 24 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing 2 1 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” a 3 factfinder “may base a credibility determination on . . . the 4 consistency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals